I had not participated in the earlier discussion of P's wager and that is why I had focused in on that part of the site.
So you are interested in whether or not they are reliable??
Here is what is NOT reliable (this is "backtracking"): Gouldp800SOET"Rapid evolution in local populations of guppies and anoles illustrates a fascinating phenomenon that teaches us many important lessons about the general process of evolution. But such changes can only be ephemeral unless they then become stabilized in coherent higher-level Darwinian individuals with sufficient stability to participate in macroevolutionary selection. These local populations usually strut and fret their short hour on the geological stage and then disappear by death or amalgamation. They produce the ubiquitous and geologically momentary fluctuations that characterize and embellish the long-term stasis of species. They are, to use Mandelbrot's famous metaphor fractals,...In other words, morphological change correlates so strongly with speciation not because cladogenesis accelerates evolutionary rates but rather because such changes which can occur at any time in the life of a local population, can not be retained and sufficiently7 stabilized to participate in selection without the protection provided by individuation- and speciation, via reproductive isolation, represents nature's preeminent mechanism for generating macroevolutionary individuals. Speciation does not necessarily promote evolutionary change; rather , speciation "gathers in" and guards evolutionary change by locking and stabilization for sufficient geological time withihn a Darwinian individual of the appropriate scale. If change in a local population does not gain such protection, it becomes- to borrow Dawkins's metaphor at a macroevolutionary scale- a transient dust storm in the desert of time, passing cloud without borders, integrity or even the capacity to act as a unit of selection, in the panorama of life's phylogeny."
all the way to "slippage" on the next paragraph I did not quote or alternatively (not necessarily mutually exclusive) to some emprics of inert VS gravitational mass PHYSICALLY.
Now if this IS (The Meaning of Relativity p 113 by A.Einstein "The condition of the above invariance implies that the entire geodesic lies on the axis of rotation and that its points remain invariant under rotation of the coordinated system. This means that the solution shall be invariant with respect to all rotations of the coordinate system around the triple infinity of geodesics." Nowthen Pais asked in 'Subtle is the Lord...'p 143 "Einstein also pointed out that transformations of the type shown in Eq.7.8 form a group, 'wie dies sein muss,' as it should be (He did not expand on this cryptic statement)" and I shant go into this beyond the name of Dawkins I quoted in Gould at this time as this requires a discussion of Physics I have started over on Ned's thread. But that it is I will simply assert. If you reject this then... well that's all I can say todayas to "claim" (where the word probably was "inherence" not 'co'.
But we would need to have an XML controlled c/e vocabulary of the invariant while what we actually have is a glossary/index here.
THERE ARE creationists who are working on Relativity and what Einstein referred to at the end of this BOOOOOOK p132"(9)Last and not least; The age of the universe, in the sense used here, must certainly exceed that of the firm crust of the earth as found from radioactive minerals. Since every determination of age by these minerals is reliable in every respect, the cosmologic theory here presented would be disproved if it were found to contradict any such results. In this case I can see no reasonable solution."
This was not a problem for elementary school but only where secular private interests rest or dont. Gould for one has both the scale and origin in time (not a mere theory of determinant, vector and tensor) while the physiology only gives DNA replication in a cell cycle. But he "hides" legitimately behind the difference of NAMING (grammer) of paleo and bio species.
It seems LESS reliable to me to find a rejection of reliablity by these people (as to belief and inerrancy) when they are proposing in what would be the secular content something in context I continue to maintain as MORE RELIABLE. It is mentally possible that I have the wrong interpretation but it is rather physically unlikely if I am permitted to read the wager through to the present consciousness. It is the law in this land that paid Medicade to "retarded" individuals that revealed unawares (I still must testify that I the "crazy card" can not be "played" in my case) that the human asset is larger than is being accounted for in nomially seperated church and state state. So to state that Christianity is unreliable is mostly done out of ignorance as far as I can tell( meaning to "ignore" it). I expect that IT will gain say this narrative of the relevant logical economics of c/e.
The only reason I can find to find the Christianity "unreliable" is if one simply by PREFERENCE (say without trying to come to terms with Kant's work for a Russel instance)TOTHINK (as Darwin did with respect to KELVIN in this case) of changable RATES (not just change). My work got stalled becuase I DID NOT THINK THIS but only tried to think out what change betwen a reptile and an amphibian amounts to (GOULD's "anole"). I assert this is a LUXURAY that while it may not be against the word of GOD is neutral as to the issue of reliability. This is achieved by other means. For instanc, I know it IS Reliable becuase my lover asserts "rape" and yet forgets or willfully denies (this covers Gould's GOD) the "experience" of reading the BIBLE together from two different languages of origin. I use science to show that this neutrality is physically describable. Pascal simply showed what was logically silly. Einstein knew how to express physically (in words) somewhat in the same note.
What is missing in this thread is how biogeography can interact with triple geodesic infinity. I leave this to Einstein's group"" no matter the physics.So even if the luxurary be affordable intoday's logical economy (this post doubts this not Christianity)there would likely be a means via a new work in taphonomy and not anty-c communications that would detail any entailment. In other words there is "no reasonable solution" once one finds the Bible unreliable. Here solution refers to data, and probablities as well as worldviews.
™ Version 4.2
